Government Technology

    Digital Communities
    Industry Members

  • Click sponsor logos for whitepapers, case studies, and best practices.
  • McAfee

At Issue: Technology and Preventing Gun Violence



January 7, 2013 By

At a press conference on Dec. 19, President Obama launched an initiative to "not only deter mass shootings in the future, but to reduce the epidemic of gun violence that plagues this country every single day."

The president went on to say that even though no law or set of laws can prevent all gun violence, effective action needs to be taken to reduce gun violence in the country. In addition, the president charged Vice President Biden with heading a group that is to come up with concrete proposals by the end of this month. "We’re going to need to work on making access to mental health care at least as easy as access to a gun," President Obama said. "We’re going to need to look more closely at a culture that all too often glorifies guns and violence."

The president also hinted at some of the possible recommendations, saying that "A majority of Americans support banning the sale of military-style assault weapons. A majority of Americans support banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips. A majority of Americans support laws requiring background checks before all gun purchases, so that criminals can’t take advantage of legal loopholes to buy a gun from somebody who won’t take the responsibility of doing a background check at all."

So the first approach will likely focus on the types of weapons and ammunition offered for sale, where they can be carried and whether they can be carried openly or concealed, loaded or empty. The second target will be gun owners and gun buyers, and whether they are at risk for violence -- if they have been convicted of violent crimes or have serious mental health issues, for instance. The third target might be violent movies, TV shows and video games.

While these measures may sound positive, they have serious shortcomings, and could result in no significant reduction in gun violence. First, half the households in America have one or more guns. Most likely, these guns are unregistered, and guns don't deterioriate -- but they can be stolen, and would become prime targets if new purchases were restricted. If a national database were instituted to preclude individuals from purchasing guns, "straw purchasers" would buy weapons for them, as is already the case. 

"Guns don't kill people, people do," as the saying goes. But predicting those who would commit violent acts is a "work in progress" as outlined in a recent Washington Post article, which states that few mentally ill are going to commit violent acts, and those at risk for doing so may slip beneath the radar. 

Some even feel that the mental health establishment is part of the problem, as psychiatrists dispense powerful medications that carry black box warnings for suicide and other mental upheavals. And ironically, it was a psychiatrist who killed 13 people and wounded 29 in the November 2009 Fort Hood shooting in Texas.

Following the Fort Hood shootings, the Department of Defense began a study and released a report last summer, titled Predicting Violent Behavior, which concluded, in part, that "there is no effective formula for predicting violent behavior with any degree of accuracy." 

Attempts to regulate weapons and weapons purchases, as well as attempts to find those who have a potential for violent behavior, are likely to heavily intrude into Americans' privacy and freedoms. 

President Obama mentioned that our culture "glorifies guns and violence." And he may be right. According to one study cited in a University of Michigan report, "An average American child will see 200,000 violent acts and 16,000 murders on TV by age 18." Possible connections between violent acts and exposure to violent movies, TV and video games will likely be investigated at length.

Information Technology for Prevention?

As President Obama said, nothing will prevent gun violence entirely. But one technology that has been around for a decade or more offers some assistance in preventing gun violence, as well as in locating and responding to shootings very quickly. The technology is called "gunshot location detection," and a number of U.S. cities now employ these systems. 

The idea is that a loud sound in a city is picked up on a series of microphones, triangulated to locate that sound, and the sound waves examined to see if it resulted from a gunshot or merely a firecracker or automobile backfire. If the sound is a gunshot, the exact location is sent to emergency services within a few seconds. And the newest addition to the system is facial recognition that instantly IDs shooters.

At first glance, it might seem that such a system would be useful for responding quickly to gun violence, but would not be of use in predicting it. But according to Rocky Mount, N.C., Police Sargeant Kevin Bern, weapons that have been stolen and are about to be sold, are fired to make sure they work. And gangs often fire weapons before they are about to engage in violence. These "confidence shots," as Bern called them, show up on the system and can be investigated. That is especially important since only about 20 percent of urban gunshots are reported by the public. In addition, illegal "celebratory gunfire" on New Years Eve or the Fourth of July can be located, and once people know the gunshot location system is in place, such gunfire diminishes.

The gunshot detection systems also can detect if a series of gunshots are moving -- as fired from a car -- and in which direction, and can after the fact, help locate shell casings and other evidence.

Since gunshot location systems were first developed, they have increased in accuracy, and are less expensive to obtain, with some available by subscription for $40,000-$60,000 per square mile of coverage, according to one estimate.

Other technologies are in development that are useful for forensics. One system could prevent anyone but the registered owner from firing a weapon. Another etches the firing pin with a serial number that is transferred to the shell casing each time it is fired. 

For more on this subject, read the March 2013 issue of Government Technology magazine.


| More

Comments

Johnny Reb    |    Commented January 8, 2013

If a survey is conducted that includes every American Citizen cognizant to under stand the question and only 35 million respond and 51 % of the respondents are for something, how is that a majority of all American Citizens. This is how we are so taken in by the media and other news outlets. There is not one single entity that can ask everyone in America a survey question and get everyone to respond. So a sampling is taken across a biased section of the realm and then Statisticians compile that information and spin it to fit the needs of the pro or con side to an issue and then Magnanimously present it as "the majority....". Give me a break show me where the majority believes anything and then I might be inclined to fully read the entire article. Until then I will keep my "tool" in the case of emergency and if you come looking to create trouble you better be prepared to understand my side of the argument.

Johnny Reb's Mother-in-Law    |    Commented January 8, 2013

You fail to mention that the Fort Hood shooter is simply a Muslim terrorist of Palestinian descent. The fact that he is a psychiatrist is rather beside the point--when he was in contact with Middle Eastern terrorists. Not so much a lone wolf...and really not "ironic" at all...

DG    |    Commented January 9, 2013

There is a simple solution to this complex problem. Military grade weaponry has no business being in the hands of civilians, period. Sale and posession should be illegal, period. If you can't carry a grenade, or drive an armed/armored tank thru town, fly your own F-18 or posess a nuclear warhead, why would a military assault rifle be any different at all? Ban it, now..!

observer    |    Commented January 15, 2013

With regards to DG: The first news story of the day, on the day of the Newtown shooting (before the shooting), was of a man in China who killed or wounded nearly thirty people at an elementary school using a knife. Must we all turn in our knives now? The term "assault weapon", in the terms of firearms, was originally defined as a fully automatically loaded and fired weapon -- one which fires multiple rounds with a single press of the trigger. These are still banned. You must have a special license to own one, so there are very few of them out there outside of government hands. The term "assault weapon", with regards to firearms, is now being defined to include those firearms that are considered to be "semi-automatic" in that they load the next round as soon as the last was fired, but requiring the shooter to again press the trigger for the next round to be fired. This description intentionally includes all gas-loaded semi-auto weapons, including pistols. It also can be used to include revolvers, those weapons which revolve a loaded cylinder to place a new round ready to be fired as the last shot is fired. Revolvers rotate to place a new round as ready and require a second press of the trigger, too. Double action revolvers, which do not require the hammer to be pulled back for every shot, can be fired as fast as a semi-auto pistol can. So, with that definition in place, the government limits firearms availability to bolt/slide/lever action and single shot weapons. These are also used by the military in combat, so they can also be termed "assault weapons", so then what is left? Where do you stop?

historian    |    Commented January 15, 2013

The British Army marched on Concord and Lexington in search of muskets and other military supplies. The British government had banned firearms so that the colonists would have no teeth in their disagreements with the government. The colonists had hidden their supplies to keep them from the hands of the army in case they had to defend themselves from the army, which they did. The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution exists because there was determined a need for Americans to be able to defend their Constitutional rights from any government which would seek to curtail those rights, because it was perceived that any government by man can become abusive, and the founders wanted this new country to be able to exercise its desire to remain free -- tyrant or not.


Add Your Comment

You are solely responsible for the content of your comments. We reserve the right to remove comments that are considered profane, vulgar, obscene, factually inaccurate, off-topic, or considered a personal attack.

In Our Library

White Papers | Exclusives Reports | Webinar Archives | Best Practices and Case Studies
Digital Cities & Counties Survey: Best Practices Quick Reference Guide
This Best Practices Quick Reference Guide is a compilation of examples from the 2013 Digital Cities and Counties Surveys showcasing the innovative ways local governments are using technological tools to respond to the needs of their communities. It is our hope that by calling attention to just a few examples from cities and counties of all sizes, we will encourage further collaboration and spark additional creativity in local government service delivery.
Wireless Reporting Takes Pain (& Wait) out of Voting
In Michigan and Minnesota counties, wireless voting via the AT&T network has brought speed, efficiency and accuracy to elections - another illustration of how mobility and machine-to-machine (M2M) technology help governments to bring superior services and communication to constituents.
Why Would a City Proclaim Their Data “Open by Default?”
The City of Palo Alto, California, a 2013 Center for Digital Government Digital City Survey winner, has officially proclaimed “open” to be the default setting for all city data. Are they courageous or crazy?
View All